The joys of my evening

[Rich]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

No it doesn't. I believe the quote is, "...and the subsequent contact takes A1 forcefully to the floor and out of bounds." Iow, the defender initiated the contact and as a result of the contact, A1 went to the floor. This case play seems to contradict the apparent "expectation" in some games that as long as the shot was blocked cleanly, the contact afterwards could be ignored.

I need a break from fighting with SQL Server.

What's forcefully to you is not necessarily forcefully to me. In the end, it's all judgment. To me, the play in the NBA video is not forcefully -- I even acknowledge if the defender had landed on the shooter or done something of that nature, I'd call a foul. I *am* protecting the shooter all the way down, but not from all contact.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I need a break from fighting with SQL Server.

What's forcefully to you is not necessarily forcefully to me. In the end, it's all judgment. To me, the play in the NBA video is not forcefully -- I even acknowledge if the defender had landed on the shooter or done something of that nature, I'd call a foul. I *am* protecting the shooter all the way down, but not from all contact.

Ok, if it comes down to a simple disagreement as to your judgement on the level of contact vs. someone else's, or who is responsible for initiating contact, I can probably live with that. I guess I was reacting to some of the qualifications made to justify the no-call, such as "the blocked ball went directly OOB, so the shooter wasn't really put at a disadvantage". Are you saying if the ball did not go OOB, would it have been a foul?

I can even agree somewhat with ignoring some contact if the block was clean to begin with, but at some point if the contact puts the shooter on the ground, isn't that an advantage, no matter where the ball went? If you tell me in the video the shooter was off-balance, and they were just as responsible for the contact as the defender, then I don't see an issue here, and maybe I'm getting all worked up over nothing?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

What's forcefully to you is not necessarily forcefully to me. In the end, it's all judgment. To me, the play in the NBA video is not forcefully -- I even acknowledge if the defender had landed on the shooter or done something of that nature, I'd call a foul. I *am* protecting the shooter all the way down, but not from all contact.

In this particular quote the word forcefully is used to specify that this is not only a foul, but can in this circumstance ("clean block" up top) be called intentional if the contact is excessive. Following this line of reasoning, any (illegal) contact which (gently?) knocks the airborne shooter to the floor will usually be regarded as a foul.